How do different countries react to new technologies such as artificial intelligence? What role do parliaments, the public and industry play? From 2 to 4 June, the Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW) and the GlobalTA network are hosting the first global TA conference in Vienna. Under the title ‘Anchoring technology assessment worldwide’, experts from all over the world will consider how politics, society and science can keep pace with rapid technological developments.

The programme includes around 80 lectures, workshops and discussion panels with experts from North America, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia and even Oceania. Among them: Karen Howard from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), who will provide insights into the practice of technology assessment in the United States.

Rapid technological change

How would you describe the current moment for technology assessment globally, and the role of international collaboration?

Howard: It’s an exciting time. New technologies are emerging rapidly, and governments increasingly rely on assessments to navigate implications and policy options. International collaboration is also crucial. Each country brings unique perspectives shaped by local contexts. Sharing experiences and strategies strengthens our collective understanding and impact.

New technologies are emerging at a rapid pace, and governments are increasingly relying on assessments to understand impacts and policy options.

How is the United States addressing the challenges of technological change today?

Karen Howard: Technological change brings both opportunities and challenges. In the U.S.—as in many other places—this change is happening so rapidly that society struggles to keep up, including the public and legislative bodies like Congress. Regulation and lawmaking typically move slower than innovation, so there's a constant effort to catch up.

With AI, for example, the public often lacks a clear understanding of where it’s used and what its benefits or risks might be. People hear fragmented information but rarely get a full picture. That makes it hard to form informed opinions or decisions, and the same goes for policymakers. Congress often lacks access to comprehensive, balanced, fact-based insights. On top of that, lawmakers must weigh national competitiveness in innovation and business, which complicates the policy response. They have to balance public good with economic strategy, a difficult task with fast-moving technologies.

Power shift in the US Congress influences political consulting

In what forms does technology assessment exist in the U.S. today?

Howard: The main assessment body for Congress is the Government Accountability Office (GAO), specifically our Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA) team. We analyze emerging technologies to inform decision-making, focusing on innovation, safety, and privacy. Universities also contribute through research and graduate programs, producing reports that we often consult.

Does the change in the U.S. presidential administration impact GAO’s work, especially in tech assessment?

Howard: Not significantly. GAO works for Congress, not the president, and remains nonpartisan. What affects us more is a shift in congressional control, which can change the priorities and types of work we’re asked to do.

We work for Congress, not for the president, and we are nonpartisan.

The concept of technology assessment originated in the U.S., correct?

Howard: Yes. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), created in 1974, was the first body to advise a parliament—Congress—on science and technology. It was active for about 20 years and inspired similar efforts abroad. After it was defunded in 1995, GAO took over the role in 2002, and it became permanent in 2008.

Bringing together perspectives from the public, business, and government sectors

How has the relationship between tech companies and technology assessment evolved?

Howard: Whenever we start a technology assessment, we engage a broad range of stakeholders—including industry. For instance, if we're studying the use of AI in medical diagnostics, we’ll speak to companies developing those AI-powered devices. They share both the benefits they see and the challenges they face. Naturally, companies are profit-driven, and that perspective is valid. But we also find they’re thoughtful about broader issues. For example, they may flag regulatory hurdles, like long approval timelines from the FDA or unclear requirements. But they also raise societal concerns—such as whether doctors over-trust AI tools or reject them entirely—both of which can hinder adoption.

Of course, companies are profit-oriented. But we are also seeing that they are concerned about the bigger picture.

While industry provides key insights, we balance their input with views from federal agencies, researchers, and advocacy groups—ensuring a comprehensive perspective for Congress.

Shifting from industry to the public—what role does the public play in assessing technological impacts today?

Howard: The public plays a critical role. Sometimes they adopt technologies quickly, like social media, without understanding risks. Other times, like with fusion energy, they hesitate due to perceived dangers. Technology assessment seeks to present both risks and benefits. In the U.S., public involvement is less frequent than in countries like Denmark, though we’ve held focus groups—for example, on fusion energy.

Given our population's size and diversity, broad public engagement is challenging. We often use targeted approaches, like consulting patient groups, which offer valuable, if not fully representative, input.